home

Washington Showing How NOT To Run An Election

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:29:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Let's start with the anti-democratic nature of caucuses themselves. Unlike in a primary, where voters have all day to vote at their convenience, or previously vote absentee, to vote in a caucus a voter must go to the caucus site at the appointed hour. Once there they have to vote PUBLICALLY by standing in a corner of a room AND if their choice does not have 15% (not an issue here I think) their choice does not count. Understand this important fact, the biggest amount of voter disinfranchisement that occurs in the nomination campaigns is when a state or party chooses caucuses over primaries.

But Washington state decided that choosing a caucus was not enough voter disenfranchisement. Jerome Armstrong explains:

I would also like to nominate Washington State for having the most screwed up system I've seen so far (what an embarrassment for you evergreeners):

Turnout is likely to be high at the Washington caucuses this weekend. State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz has said he expects last cycle's turnout of about 100,000 people to be dwarfed. The turnout may be as high as 200,000. However, there is considerable confusion about the process, and the state party admits to being "overwhelmed" by calls from Democratic voters seeking guidance. Washington, in an arrangement that even local political leaders find bizarre, has both a caucus on Feb. 9 and a primary on Feb. 19, meaning that voters are currently staring at mail-in primary ballots at the same time as they're trying to figure out their caucus locations. Even more confusing, Democrats use only the caucuses to apportion delegates, making the primary effectively meaningless for them...

Can you believe that one? You get a ballot in the mail that is meaningless, at the same time you have to go to a caucus to cast your vote! And believe it or not, Democrats run the entire state and have for years now.

One of the excuses caucus apologists give is that a caucus is less expensive than a primary. Well it is NOT less expensive than holding a caucus AND a primary! And creating a system seemingly designed to confuse and disenfranchise voters is a disgrace.

Please excuse me if I think Florida and Michigan did a better job than Washington and will likely have more representative delegations selected than Washington state. As to who is going to "win" this travesty, Survey USA has Obama ahead by 5. But since most of the respondents to its poll will VOTE IN THE MEANINGLESS PRIMARIES and NOT the CAUCUS who know what that means.

What a sick joke.

NOTE: Comments are closed.

< Nebraska High Court Outlaws Electric Chair | Weekend State Primary/Caucuses >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Washington Showing How NOT To Run An Election | 175 comments (175 topical)
    that is the most bizarre (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    system yet. Hopefully the candidates will reach out to let their supporters know only the caucus vote counts.

    I saw Texas labeled a "hybrid" state (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    rather than a clearly caucus or primary state on some site.  I wonder if that means that the stupidity of the Washington system of both caucus and primary is what is set for Texas, too?

    Parent
    Read the SUSA release a little closer (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    Of the registered voters, Democrats are more likely to caucus than Republicans. Among those who say they will caucus as Democrats, Obama has a 2:1 advantage over Clinton, 63% to 33%.
    I'd say that's pretty damning.

    Voter disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:45:18 AM EST


    Parent
    It's what makes Chris Bowers's whine (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    about how the nominee will be selected at the convention seem pretty stupid. Bowers, like many other people, seems only to dislike some unfair rules.

    Parent
    To be fair to Chirs (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    He HATES the caucus system and has the same critque as I do.

    Parent
    Your criticism is better directed at (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    people like TINS and Kid Oakland, big time hypocrites.

    Parent
    fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST


    Parent
    This nomination process (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by magster on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    has exposed some major problems with the process (Iowa, NH, FL, MI, superdelegates, and now WA), and I share much of Bowers' angst.  Although I am an Obama supporter, I just want one or the other to crush this next month so there is no doubt about who we've chosen.

    Parent
    Well we do (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    not caucus for the GE.

    As for Dem turn out.. what is the demographics on those that show up? Are the Sen Clinton's supporters working at the time and therefore can not show up?

    Parent

    It's Saturday (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    so the work effect should be smaller.

    But there is more in life thsn work that could cause you not to be able to attend at an appointed hour.

    Parent

    When you (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:39:18 AM EST
    are working in the service sector... Saturday is difficult to get off.

    Parent
    Orthdox Jews and 7th-Day Adventists (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    also are being suppressed as voters on Saturdays, as was brought up in the Nevada suit.  That ought to have mattered to a candidate who talks about religion so much.  But only mainstream religions that worship on Sunday matter, it seems.

    Parent
    Damning of the Clinton campaign. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    There's nothing magical about caucuses that prevented her from contesting caucus states on the ground.  He set up three offices in the state to get his supporters out to the caucuses, she didn't.

    She spent $500,000 on parking expenses, but didn't open a single office in 90% of post-NV caucus states.

    Parent

    You DEFEND this travesty? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    This is perfect. Voter enfranchisement ONLY matter to some of you when it favors Obama.

    Disgusted with the lost of you.

    Can you NOT at least speak to the issue of the travesty of this Washington system?

    Parent

    Caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    Agree  completely,  BTD.  

    Caucuses  favor   the  young  activists   who  can   attend/stand  for long  periods of time, etc.    Most who  attend  are   motivated  activists ,  and  as  such, may not  reflect  the  true   party  voters in the  state.    

    Did you know that  like  superdelegates,   caucus   delegates  are  not binding  or committed  until  the  actual  state   caucuses  later this spring  or  summer?

    So  basically,   all the  delegates  that   Obama has  won  in  caucus  states , for now,  don't  really  count.  

    That  would include  Alaska,  Colorado,  Idaho,  Maine, Nevada,  North Dakota,  Louisiana,  Washington state,  and  Nebraska.  

    Only  the  true  primary   delegates  are  locked  in.  

    Parent

    caucuses (none / 0) (#51)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    Sorry,  that  should  have  read  "actual state  conventions,"  not  "actual  state  caucuses."

    Parent
    Each state (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    gets to choose the process of selecting delegates.  Doesn't matter if it is caucus or primary or straw poll or rock paper scissors.  Those delegates are allowed to vote for whomever they wish to.

    For instance in my state, New Jersey, we have a primary.  If you look on the ballot you will see the various Democratic choices, Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Kucinich/etc.  Under the names of each candidate you will see a certain number of delegate names.  In my district there are 3 possible delegates.  

    After the votes are tallied they select the number of delegates from each ticket based on the vote results.  So in my district the 3rd delegate is almost certain to NOT go to the convention because that would have required a massive victory by that candidate.

    However those delegates are not technically bound to their candidate.  They could vote for anyone.  But the reality is that delegates are almost always devout partisans for their candidate and would never consider voting for someone else if the vote mattered.

    So, in this aspect, there is very little difference between caucuses and primaries.

    Parent

    In Washington they chose a primary (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    by referendum. Their votes have been thwarted by the politicos in Washington.

    you reall have no idea what you are talking about.

    this is when I hate Obama cultists the most.

    Parent

    I'll defend flyerhawk (none / 0) (#97)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    1. I haven't seen him be an Obama cultist based on any of his posts
    2. I didn't see anywhere where he address the fairness of caucuses in general or defended WA in particular

    His post was purely about how much delegates are bound by the results of the selection process. It's basically a factual rundown of the rules.

    You're getting overheated today BTD, and I don't mean that as an insult. It's just the internet in a comments section, relax and do something fun today!

    Parent

    Oh nonsense (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    THIS POST isa about he Washington TRAVESTY.

    And the Obama cult has wanted talk about everything but what his post is about. I get heated when the Obama Cult behaves as it has in this thread.

    A disgrace.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    Where did I even mention Washington?  

    Where did I mention Obama?  

    The poster I responded to stated that caucus delegates can vote for anyone they want at the convention, implying that it is different than primaries.

    I respond to that point using my state as an example and you respond with a nonsequitur plus 2 separate insults.

    For a person who took offense to me accusing you of shilling for Hillary it sure seems like you have NO PROBLEM with name calling when it comes to Obama supporters.  

    All you seem to be capable of doing when talking with Obama supporters is insult them.  Just the fact that they are Obama supporters seems to be enough to draw your ire.

    Parent

    You were not talking Washington? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    Oh effing really? then your comments are all Ot.

    Effing joke the lot of you are.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#106)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    I  got your point,  BTD.  

    Washington  Democrats   voted  by   referendum for  a  PRIMARY  and  not  a  CAUCUS.  

    Their  votes  were  ignored.  

    I  get it.  :)

    Parent

    Each state (none / 0) (#103)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    From the  New York  Times  today:  

    "The  difficulty  in  assessing  delegate   strenth lies in a  multistep  caucus system that  is  different  from  a  primary,  which is  a  one-day  event  where  voters  go to the polls  the  the   results  are  USUALLY  BINDING.

    A  caucus,  on the other  hand,  is  just  the  first  stage  of  a process that  can drag  on until  late spring  before producing  reliable  numbers. As  a  result,   some news  organizations   do not incorporate  caucus  results  in projecting  delegate  counts, waiting  instead  until   delegates   from  those  states   are  OFFICIALLY  CERTIFIED. (which  Obama's  are not)

    As of  Friday,  7  states---Alaska  Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,  Minnesota, Nevada ,  and  NorthDakota---had  held   caucuses  to  choose  delegates  who  will go to  district-level   or  statewide  party  conventions.  It is  at  THOSE  CONVENTIONS  where  delegates  will officially  be pledged to  a  candidate  at the  national  convention in  Denver."  

    So,  essentially,  NONE  of  Obama's  caucus  delegates   are   pledge  or  certified  at  all,   and  could  change  at  the  state  conventions.  

    Each state  may  choose  whether  they   have  a primary or  a  caucus,  but the PROCESS  for them  being  actual  pledged  or  certified  is  regulated  by  state  conventions  and  the DNC.  

    Parent

    Each state (none / 0) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    sets up their own rules.  

    Parent
    Own rules (none / 0) (#131)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:25:27 PM EST
    NOPE.    

    Delegates  won in  caucuses  are  not   binding  or   "pledged"  until   the  state  conventions  later   on.    

    So....all of  Obama's  caucus  delegates   are  not pledged  or  certified   at  all,  as  of this  date.  

    THAT  rule  is  the  same in all  states.

    Parent

    It's far from an ideal system. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    But, there's nothing about it that favors Obama over Clinton.

    The caucus states are being won on organization and lost on a lack of organization.

    Parent

    Still ingoring MY point (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    This Washington system is a travesty.

    I do not care who wins.

    Denounce the freaking travesty.

    Do any of you care about anything but Obama winning now?

    Parent

    I do (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    There are MANY fundamentals flaws with the nomination process.  Caucuses are certainly flawed but they also have upsides, particularly in small states.  In small states individuals have a great deal of influence in comparison to traditional primaries.

    In larger states caucuses become unruly and ineffective.  New York would create massive voter disenfranchisement.  But Idaho or Wyoming could engage in caucuses with little difference in voter influence.

    However if the state of Washington wishes to have a caucus process why should I care?  I don't live there.  

    Parent

    Do you even know how to read? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    the voters of Washington wanted a PRIMARY! they voted for it.

    And their wishes were DENIED by the usual poliitcal subjects. the ones Obama denounces all the time.

    But that is the least of it. they will hold the primary anyway and half the voters do not know their primary vote WILL NOT COUNT!

    you people are simply disgusting.

    Parent

    Will you please stop with the name calling? (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    Once AGAIN.  I made no reference to Washington.  I don't live in Washington.  I have NO SAY in how they choose their delegates.  And I don't really know their system.  

    You made a broad statement and I responded with a broad response to which you decide to attack me with a specific example implying that I support the Washington system.  I don't.  

    Parent

    then stop posting in this thread (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    Ansd indeed, stop posting at this site.

    I hate the post hijackings by the likes of you and Kid Oakland.

    Parent

    It's not a great way of doing things, no. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    But, it's not some attempt to disenfranchise voters.  It's just an incompetent, incoherent scheme.

    Washington voters do deserve better.

    Parent

    The voter disenfranchisement.... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by CathyinLa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    ...happens whether it was purposely designed to be anti-Clinton or not.

    Seems to me that is the point.  Anti-caucus is the argument, not anti-Obama.

    Parent

    It DOES disenfranchise voters (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    that is the problem.

    And the problem with the Obama CULT is it is utterly phony about its concern for disenfranchising voters.

    Kid Oakland in particular has been disgraceful on this issue.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    It works pretty well when the nominee is basically wrapped up. Caucuses get activists to gather round and sort out state party business while allocating delegates. It's great for state party building, and probably no one would turn up unless there was a vote.

    However, I agree that it is hardly perfect when the race is still contested.

    Parent

    Caucuses exist (none / 0) (#127)
    by magster on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    So you play the game.  Hillary can't complain about her strategy of playing to the big states if it doesn't work in the caucus states.

    From a chess match point of view, Obama's strategy of dominating the small states has been brilliant.

    Parent

    WTF? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    How hard is it for you Obama supporters to admit this Washington contest is a travesty?

    Parent
    Rhetorical question, I gather. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    But remember the high profile Obamites are here to educate those of us incapable of independent thought.  A public service.  

    Parent
    In a fair system (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    organization should not get you from 50% support to 63%. Is it not obvious what the effect of having a caucus is?

    Parent
    When one campaign doesn't contest a state, (none / 0) (#117)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    why shouldn't it get its butt kicked there?

    Clinton's decision to not compete seriously in MN, CO, AK, ND, ID, UT, NE, and WA is utterly indefensible from a pragmatic point of view.  Heck, she doesn't even have a field office in Virginia, which is a primary.  Stupid politics, and indicative that she's not up to the strategic challenge of playing offense against the Republicans.  

    Parent

    not responsive to my point (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    How is it fair that going with a caucus instead of a primary turns a 1.1:1 contest into a 2:1 blowout? It just isn't, and there's no way you can argue past that. We might as well go back to winner-take-all primaries. In a way, that might even be a fairer fight--and better preparation for the general election.

    Parent
    It's fair because the caucus format (none / 0) (#126)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    doesn't favor one over the other.

    It favors the campaign that's willing to organize and work versus a campaign that wants to mail it in.

    Hard work and actually paying attention to these states matters.  Clinton may not have uttered the words "Idaho," "Alaska," or "Kansas" during this campaign.

    She effectively dissed those states, and they returned the favor.

    Parent

    Excuse me, but there's some explanation (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    for why the universe of Caucus goes is different from that of those who intend to vote in the primary. If, as it appears, a change of more than 10 percentage points is attributable to organization, then there's something fundamentally flawed about the system.

    Parent
    When one campaign has three offices (none / 0) (#135)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    and a fully-funded field operation and the other doesn't even have a post office box there?

    Caucuses are about organization and getting your people out.  It's about investing in local infrastructure and intensive GOTV efforts.

    You want to know why more Obama people will be there today?  Because they've been called three times, probably had their door knocked on in many cases, and have had mailers sent to them with the time and location of their caucus.

    And there's nothing 'fundamentally flawed' about a system rewarding a candidate for engaging in voter outreach and punishing those who think that dropping a tv ad is enough.

    Parent

    meh (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST


    Parent
    The Democratic Party is really disappointing me (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jonathan3 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:46:40 AM EST
    Democratic Party is disappointing me with these  asinine decisions that end up disenfranchising their own base.  It seems abhorrent that the Democratic Party in Washington deliberately chose to ignore the primary vote (the Republican primary in WA still counts).  What part of "Democratic" does the Democratic Party not understand?  

    A bunch of wankers.

    Only SOME of the primary vote (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    counts in the R party system...they have a formula and use both the primary AND caucuses to allocate their delegates to the next level.

    Parent
    Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    If you support Gravel, you have to attend the Caucus. For Clinton or Obama, your mail-in is enough.

    Heh. No. Not in WA. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    Good try, though!

    Parent
    ok, this is probably too (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    simple a solution (i'm a big proponent of ocham's razor), but why doesn't the democratic party of washington state just change their method to only the primary? the state has no control over it, so the legislature needn't get involved.

    i guess it boils down to: who benefits from the caucus?

    That is not a solution (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    Some people will caucus and not vote in the primary. And vice versa.

    Frankly, I would not count any of it and have a do over.

    In mid March. Isn't that what Obama wants for Florida and Michigna, where there is no deliberate misleading of the voters?

    Parent

    No mechansim for a do-over. (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:13:39 PM EST


    Parent
    I will never understand (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by spit on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    why some people defend caucuses. The secret ballot is IMO fundamental to voting freely.

    And WA is so screwed up it's jaw dropping. Worst system I've heard of.

    This is one selection process (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    that should not count.

    If they do over Michigan and Florida then they should do over Washington.


    Parent

    Do-overs (none / 0) (#108)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    Agree   completely,   Big  Tent.  

    Or,  conversely, if  Obama  supports  counting  this  Washington  travesty,  he   must  count  Michigan and  Florida  too.  

    He  can't  have it both  ways.

    Parent

    sorry (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    off topic a bit, but I know some of the other (civil) blogs are featuring stories about the messianic/cult aspect of the BO campaign.  

    I just visited his site's blog for a minute and almost all the first comments were about sending prayers and all this religious stuff--it was really weird and totally unexpected.

    Caucuses are NOT democratic!  How are they fair to people who have to work, watch their children, etc., during those times, especially as they offer no absentee option.  And the fact that they are not private! I imagine that caucuses also don't attract shy/passive people who don't want to deal with the aggressive nature of it.  

    I know I'm not saying anything new, but I had to vent!

    Speaking for me (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
    I have no problem with people of faith being involved and faith appeals do not bother me.

    Some of the policies that some of "the faithful" advocate for do bother me. But I argue those issues on the merits. The fact that they are faith based is not a problem for me.

    Parent

    Washington (none / 0) (#31)
    by IndependantThinker on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    has an absentee ballot even for the caucus. At least their website describes one. If your homebound, disabled and a couple more, but you have to submit the paperwork in January.

    I really don't understand why Clinton supporters don't caucus for her on a Saturday or Sunday unless the majority of voters do support Obama.

    Parent

    I've learned that the caucus system is (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Grandmother on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    insanely flawed.  When I went to vote in our primary on February 5th, I inadvertently pulled out my paper ballot quickly and the poll worker cautioned me that he could see my "secret" ballot. I told him that I didn't care if he knew who I was voting for but it got me thinking about these caucuses. How easy is it to maintain your position in a room full of rowdy people, jockeying for their candidate if you are a shy, nonagressive, nonconfrontational,make no waves person.  Do you go with the crowd, do you stay home, do you pretend you are someone you're not; do you take a chance on being embarased, do you vote like your neighbors because they are good friend.

    This caucus system has to go.  It is not democracy. Our votes should be our votes.  Even in the sometimes backward state of Missouri, we have the secret ballot. People should be clamoring for a change in this system and a change at the DNC for what they did to Florida and Michigan.

    I heard (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    HRC say (as reported on CNN) in the beginning of one of her speeches at a caucus state that a number of nurses came up to her after a previous speech and told her they can't caucus this Saturday because they have to be at work.  

    However, the one caucus she won, NV, was held on a Saturday.  So this may help her compared to Super Tuesday's caucuses.  

    Some Days (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM EST
    it is hard to be a member of the STUPID PARTY.

    who said it? (none / 0) (#52)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    "I don't belong to an organized party.  I am a democrat."

    Parent
    I'm Terrible At Trivia (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    I think Will Rogers said that.

    Parent
    Will Rogers (none / 0) (#60)
    by TomStewart on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    The cowboy humorist said that, along with many others that are still quoted today.

    Parent
    I guess it isnt a stupid party if (none / 0) (#73)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    the "powers behind the throne" wish Obama to be elected...and they do...also remember that Microsoft throws a lot of weight in Washington...All things to consider....All in all, seems to me that things have been orchestrated to favor Obama....What a shock....LOL....

    Parent
    Florida/Michigan-Seat Our Delegates NOW! (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Piper on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    Hello all. I'm new here.

    Anyhow, I'm a Floridian, and I'm appalled that my vote is not being counted. The voters of Michigan and Florida are not responsible for the pissing contest between the state Democratic party and the DNC. We didn't set the primary schedule.

    Anyhow, I started a petition to demand that the Michigan and Florida delegates be sat at this year's convention. Please take the time to sign it and pass it on:

    Seat Our Delegates NOW!

    It is incredibly short-sighted of the DNC to punish the voters. If they don't count our votes now, they can't count on our votes in November.

    Your vote will count (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    But first you have to be represented in the credentials committee and that will be up to Obama to accept or disenfranchise you.

    If the dispute drags on, it will be handed in late June to the party's credentials committee, which could seat some, all or none of the Florida or Michigan delegates, as it chooses. Any decision by the 186-member credentials committee would then go to the convention floor for a final vote by all delegates.

    The catch is that each state delegation elects members to the credentials committee based on how well each candidate did in the primary. For example, Sen. Obama won Georgia with 66% of the vote, entitling him to about that percentage of Georgia's seats on the credentials committee. If the delegates remain evenly split, the credentials committee could be too, setting off a floor fight.

    Sen. Clinton would almost certainly argue for including the delegations on grounds they are important states to the party. Sen. Obama then would be in the uncomfortable position of seeking to disenfranchise them.

    "If it gets that far, then Obama has to look Michigan and Florida in the eye and say, 'I don't want you in my convention.' That's pretty powerful stuff," Mr. Thurber said.

    link

    Parent

    Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:10:46 PM EST
    Somebody   please  tell  me  that  Barak  Obama  would  NOT  be  so selfish  and  so eager  to   grab  the  nomination   that   he  would   renege  on his promise  to    reinstate   Florida  and  Michigan  at  the  convention.  

    If  he  does  so,   he  won't  win either  state  in  the  general.

    Parent

    I am also from Florida (none / 0) (#118)
    by independent voter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    and was well aware, long before Jan 29 (as you should have been) that we were simply voting on the property tax amendment, and at best, cheering for our choice of candidate.
    This is not a surprise that was sprung on you AFTER you cast your ballot, so please drop the righteous indignation.
    FYI, if you care one tiny bit about your country, you WILL vote in the GE.


    Parent
    Independent Voter (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    And if   Barak  Obama  is  a man of his  word,    the  Floridian   delegates  will be    reinstated  at  the  convention.    

    If  he   breaks his  word  just  to deny  Clinton   the  nomination,  then we  ALL know  he  doesn't play  fair  OR  keep his  word.    

    He  can't  win  a  general   if  he offends  the  voters of  Florida. It's too   crucial  a  swing  state.  

    And   the superdelegates  will  remember  that  when  making  their  choices.

    Parent

    Good luck with that narrative (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    Nice parsing of comments from 5 months ago. Hillary would be proud of you.

    Parent
    I've been reading and hearing a lot about (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    how awful it will be when/if the superdelegates decide this race. I agree it won't be good, but I will be forever bothered that the caucus process has also decided this race.

    I would just as well have members of Congress and other party officials who are loyal to our party and our platform than so many Democrats for a day and Independents decide this. No one will ever convince me that any caucus is any better than the Florida primary where at least the voters had a secret ballot and all day to show up and vote or weeks to vote early.

    Caucus (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    Agree, Teresa.  

    And  superdelegates  have  ALWAYS  had the final  say,  always   been  part  of  the  Democratic  Party's  process.  

    I  find  it offensive   that  even though  he  knew  all that  going in,  Obama's  campaign  NOW   works his  supporters  into  a  frenzy  because  the  superdelegates might  tip it  against him.  

    If  the  superdelegates   were in his  favor,  you can  bet your  bottom dollar   he'd say  nothing.  

    Besides,   if  we  as  a party    allow  these  caucus  delegates  to determine  anything,  while  disenfranchising   the voters  of  Florida  and  Michigan,    it  will  be   a  travesty   in  terms of  fairness.    

    Parent

    Agreed; we elect a lot of super delegates (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    at least.

    Pledged delegates are a lot of big donors.  If it is a brokered convention, if it goes past the first ballot (for some) or second ballot (for others), they are no longer bound.  And then, our nominee will be in the hands of corporate types.

    Parent

    Here in WA (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by TomStewart on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    Yep, it's confusing and it sucks. The whole system is the result of lawsuits by Republicans and compromises that, by the time we were done, we forgot just what the compromises were for...
    Somethings tells me that a few more lawsuits are coming.

    Oh, and then there is the screw-up the Obama campaign pulled, sending out robo calls to WA voters  that were supposed to go to Maine, telling thousands that the caucus was Sunday. Sheesh.

    Personally I don't get what is so dang great about the caucus system and why people defend what is essentially an anti-democratic system. It sounds like something a bunch of rich landowners came up with to keep an eye on how people were voting so they would know whom to lean on to protect their interests.

    Not exactly. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:33:48 PM EST
    It's a mess, yes, but the lawsuits by the Rs were supported by the Ds...it was a philosophic issue to them...do they getg to pick their own candidates or not?  They won.

    BUT...the primary was passed by the legislature (in response to a citizen initiative, as I recall) and the parties get to choose whether or not to count it...count part of it (the R choice) or count none of it (the Dem choice).

    Parent

    That's right (none / 0) (#134)
    by TomStewart on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:27:54 PM EST

    It was a response to the Ellen Craswell mess, where the Dem's crossed over to vote for the far right Repub Craswell in the primary. Craswell went down soundly to defeat and the R's sued, joined by the the Dems who were afraid that the R's would pull the same thing on them.

    The repubs count the primary, the Dems don't. I really don't get why, but there you go.

    Parent

    perhaps a reason (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:56:12 AM EST
    caucuses favor BO is that many/most of HRC's female voters are mothers--who never get a day off! :)

    In any event, it's just a bad system for the American people, regardless of which campaign it may or may not favor.

    A caucus (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sas on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    favors Obama because the working people who vote for Hillary are actually WORKING, or tending to children for the most part.

    A Saturday caucus doesn't help matters, tons of her base work on Saturday and the kids are home from school all day.

    People need a primary, where they have all day, and can make arrangements to go to the polls for an hour or so.

    Who can afford to hang around a caucus all afternoon?

    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    the working poor ... working at the grocery store, fast food, gas station for all the "educated" class (9-5 M-F) on their way the caucus.

    Parent
    Don't confuse people with these facts (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    their heads might explode coming up with new spin about how caucuses are just marvy.

    Parent
    Forget about who a caucus favors or not (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by independent voter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    What about someone in an abusive relationship? Do you think that person would be comfortable expressing their opinion in the open with their abuser in the room? (assuming it differs with the abuser)
    How about your boss? How about your parents? (sadly, some adults are still unwilling to disagree with their parents)How about your neighbors?
    There should be NO dialogue about who this arrangement favors, it is unfair and a terrible way to gauge the mood of the electorate.
    Some of this passion would be better geared towards eliminating caucuses for the next election.
    And, yes, I do fully support Barack Obama

    Parent
    I'm in favor of that (none / 0) (#104)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    You are correct that caucuses are simply (small d) undemocratic and should be abolished.  There's nothing anyone can do about it this cycle, but next cycle is another story.

    No matter who wins this time, that doesn't change.


    Parent

    He! He! Well, the media (none / 0) (#83)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    keeps stating that the "educated" support Sen Obama and the poor support Sen Clinton. So the media's demographics...well.. skew the caucus attendance.


    Parent
    There are many ways you could slice it (none / 0) (#91)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    Obama's also gets the youth vote, which are notoriously difficult to get to the polls. Clinton's got most of the older vote, which almost always turn out. This should favor her at the caucuses where you need to be even more committed to show up.

    Parent
    No. Caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    in WA have always favored the fevered supporters of insurgent candidates with small chance of winning the national nomination...Dean, Kucinich, etc.

    The older voters in WA (my state) have a much harder time caucusing than voting by mail...noone from an assisted living facility is going to stand in their walker for 2 hours...much less get to the caucus in the first place.  They vote, though!

    Parent

    That is a fair point (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    I can definitely see how older voters and those with disabilities would be disenfranchised.  

    Parent
    Yes, and in Iowa, lots were held (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    in living rooms and basement rec rooms and the like.   I have not been able to figure out whether other states do better at holding caucuses in public places that meet ADA laws.

    Parent
    What exactly do you think (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    Obama supporters are doing?  Playing X-box all day?

    Perhaps the reason that Obama has an advantage is because he has a more energized but smaller base whereas Hillary has an advantage when it comes to voters with only a casual interest in politics?

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    But that doesn't make it Democratic.

    The caucus system was how the crazies, for a time, took over the R party in WA...which led to this primary/caucus combo....just nuts!

    Parent

    That's probably true (none / 0) (#107)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST
    I think caucuses are generally silly.   They are an outdated system.  They made more sense a 100 years ago because they opened up what often was a behind closed doors process.

    Parent
    Agree with flyerhawk (none / 0) (#95)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    It's great that you can stereotype Obama supporters as lazy bums (probably youngins' that smoke too much pot and lazy bums with nothing else to do). Obama wins among the black voters big time, which are also the working poor, remember.


    Parent
    AA comunity in WA (none / 0) (#114)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    is not really a factor.

    Demographics...

    There are many migrant Mexican farm workers living in the southeast-central part of the state, though the population is also increasing as laborers in Western Washington.

    Washington has the fifth largest Asian population of any state. The Filipino community is the largest Asian American subgroup in the state. Gary Locke was elected as the first Asian American governor at the end of the 20th century.

    African Americans are less numerous than Asians or Hispanics in many communities, but have been elected as mayor of Seattle, Spokane and Lakewood and as King County Executive. In Seattle, minorities are moving into the southern part of the city as well as many suburban areas such as South King County. Tacoma also has a rising African-American population.

    According to the media ... the "well educated"  will be dicision makers.

    Remember Microsoft. Another reason Hillary will not do weel in this state.

    Parent

    I guess my point is (none / 0) (#121)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    that the reason Clinton lost most of the ST caucuses weren't because of how easy/hard it is for various sub-groups to get to the polls. That, at most, counts for only a  few percentage points difference.

    The main reasons, as flyerhawk pointed out, are because Obama supporters are typically more strongly committed, and thus show up at a caucus (regardless of demographic). Another big factor is that Clinton didn't bother asking for their vote in most caucus states, so of course she was going to get creamed there.

    Now, I agree that caucuses are generally undemocratic, but what's killing Clinton is the lack of a large base of enthusiastic supporters and the fact that she doesn't compete in caucus states, not because of how easy/hard it is to get to the polls (because that can cut both ways for a lot of groups).

    Parent

    OH. I was addressing (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    Washington State not caucus in general.

    But caucus weekness is a problem for Sen Clinton.
    I do not agree with...

    but what's killing Clinton is the lack of a large base of enthusiastic supporters

    For what it is worth....I disagree that they don't show up because of lack of enthusiasm. The states that have the caucus system also have demographics that are hard for her to overcome.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#144)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    demographics are no doubt a factor too.

    The key counter-example here is NV. Clinton invested in the GOTV effort, had a reasonable shot with the demographics, and got the win. She earned it. She hasn't competed in most other caucus states (in most states she never even opened a field office), so it's hardly surprising when she gets beaten there.

    It's been part of her strategy to not compete there b/c of demographics (fair enough), but no one should be surprised that when she doesn't ask for a state's vote, she doesn't get it.

    Parent

    I'm not suprised (4.00 / 0) (#155)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    that she doesn't get the states vote. Looking at the SOME of these states... they are red states.

    Should Hillary get the nomination then she will not have to worry about a caucus.

    Sen Obama does well in these states. His "uplifting" of people bode well. He does not address the Dem core platform or much of his plans (substance lacking). In a Red/Purple state that is a GREAT approach.

    Sen Clinton outlines her stance... they know she is pro-life, pro-bigger government, gun control, etc. She can NOT do as well in Red/Purple states.

    But, this is also why she does well with the core Dems.

    Parent

    Clinton's Enthusiastic Base (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    Clinton has an enthusiastic base, but getting them to caucus takes a lot of effort.  Caucuses tend to be dominated by the well educated and the well to do.  That is Obama's base.  So to do well in a caucus, Clinton has to get people who don't normally caucus to go do it.  Now, Obama has to do that to a certain extent with the young voters, but even these voters often fit into the well-educated or are at least headed into that category.

    Caucuses tend to suppress the vote of average voters at the expense of the activist elite.  Indeed, they are designed to do that, to give activists more of a say.  Which isn't completely indefensible, but it isn't particularly "democratic" in that they don't necessarily reflect the will of the majority of eligible voters.  

    What's particularly galling about Washington is that the voters said they'd rather have a primary, they want to participate and it appears the party elite don't care.  Now, a cynic might think that's because the elite are afraid the unwashed masses might disagree with them.  Honestly, I can't believe the DNC didn't step in here.  They care about when a primary/caucus is held, but don't care about a state setting up a confusing system that's likely to anger most democratic voters?  


    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#140)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    they probably should have stepped in. But pre Jan 3rd, there was almost no one that thought WA was actually going to matter. And once it was clear it would matter, it was too late to change the rules.

    As I said before, caucuses are great at party-building (getting all of the super-activists in one place to map out strategy, etc). Which works well if the nomination is basically over. The problem is that it isn't.

    Parent

    I Hope (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    That whoever wins the WA caucus today also wins the primary and by about the same margin.

    My nightmare scenario - Candidate X wins caucus today with 200,000 people participating.  Candidate Y wins primary on the 19th with 800,000 people participating.  

    Talk about a mess.  

    That's why I'm not buying this - super delegates HAVE to follow pledged delegates to be fair.  The way pledged delegates are distributed is a mess and hardly some sort of tribute to democracy or the popular will.   And caucuses are the worst because it's incredibly difficult to gauge the popular vote.   And there is absolutely no reason to have super delegates if they vote lockstep with pledged delegates.

    Honestly, what would be so hard or terrible about making every state hold a primary and then allocating delegates based on the popular vote for the primary?  If they want to insist on some sort of viability threshold so they don't have a dozen candidates with a small number of delegates, I could understand that.   I don't know if that would make any difference in the current race, but at least it would be transparent and people would know why one person has more delegates than the other.  But part of the reason this has the potential to be a nightmare is that we could get a situation where both sides have a valid argument that they should be the nominee.  

    I don't understand the point in developing a nominating system that is absolutely weakest in a close contest.  That seems to me to be when you need the most clarity and transparency to try to keep hard feelings to a minimum.  

    Argh!

    It was mostly a party-building strategy (none / 0) (#136)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    In most of the years, the nomination is already decided before the caucuses, and in most of the caucuses, you don't just vote, you also take care of local party business and decide on the state platform. So it makes sense in that context, but you're right it completely falls apart when the race is close.

    Parent
    Yes, it was set up for Dem activists (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    -- the longtimers, not the "Dems for a Day" -- to have their say.  So when it is used, as it is this year, to overwhelm them with lots of Independents and crossover GOP types, it makes caucuses a mess.

    Added to that is the media attention to them now, just because the media love horse races for ratings.

    In Iowa, for example, only several hundred turned out across the state for caucuses not long ago -- and its results used to be reported as an odd little regional oddity good for jokes by NY-based media.

    Parent

    Cream City (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    Well  said.  

    The  "Dems  for  a  Day"  votes  are  great  in  a  general,  but  the  superdelegates   help make  sure  that  the  candidate  nominated   actually  represents   what  the  base  Dem  states  want,   and   who  is  more  strategically   positioned  to  carry   crucial   swing  states  in November for  the good of  the party  as  a  whole.    

    It  has  always  been so.

    Otherwise,  an  insurgent  candidate  winning  lots of  small  caucuses  in what otherwise  would    actually  be  red  states in November,    and  the  delegates  earned  there, would  skew   the   majority  consensus  of  the   base  Dems.  

    "Dems  for  a   Day" --certainly  welcome,  but not  representing  the  base of  the party.      

    Parent

    The two are basically tied in the popular vote (none / 0) (#153)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM EST
    and delegate count. So if Obama ends up with a delegate and popular vote edge, I think that'd be pretty legitimate.

    And why shouldn't dems for a day count? As long as they're pulling the D lever this fall rather than the R lever (and, furthermore, allowing them to participate converts them), then why shouldn't they get a say?

    Parent

    Just returned from the caucus (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Sima on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    I wasn't impressed.

    We signed in using PENCILs they provided.  I insisted on using a pen.

    As usual this election, the site was overwhelmed.  I kicked in to help by going around with a sign in sheet for my precinct to get people in the 20 ft long lines signed in and away to their precinct room.

    The person running my precinct didn't realize that the delegates had to be reapportioned after the undecideds had been swayed (or not).  

    All in all, I thought it an excellent way to control voters and disenfranchise people.  

    WA state has been fighting over this for a while, apparently our primary system was ruled unconstitutional or something, because it was a regular vote, but anyone could vote in the Democratic or Republican primary, so the parties took it to the courts and got the prefered system of the people knocked out.  The people keep voting it back in, the parties keep knocking it out.

    What we have now is an abomination.  Caucusing is horrible and most were agreeing.

    Off the top of my head I'd say the demographics at the causus were 70% were over 50-55, about 50-50% men/women.  This doesn't fit the local census demographics, btw.  Ohh, most of them were obviously well to do, educated professionals or retired.  Only a few of us were working class.  No blacks, no hispanics, no Indians (surprised me, as we have two reservations locally).  So, you can tell that they went for Obama 9 delegates to 4 for Clinton.

    My sister in Washington has been very worried (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    My sister in Washington has been very worried.  She was working for Edwards and in making calls found that a lot of people thought they could "vote" in either one (caucus/primary) -- that it would all count.

    What a mess.

    yep (none / 0) (#39)
    by hookfan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:37:52 AM EST
    my brother thought so. So what happens to the primary votes if one doesn't caucus?

    Parent
    Nothing happens to them. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    They are tallied, reported and that's that.  The party calls them 'advisory,' whatever that means.  I suppose if any of our superdelegates were on the fence it might affect their choice of candidate....

    Parent
    We found in Kansas that the Venue was powerful (none / 0) (#22)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    We found in Kansas that the Venue itself was powerful.  I don't know why but my caucus location was in one of the smallest churches in the county.  The main room held under 200 people and a "spillover" room just over 100 -- for a caucus that drew over 2000 people, it was impossible.

    I was a Dem Party Volunteer and managing the crowd was an impossible nightmare.  People stood out in the sleet & snow for over 3 hours in some cases.  

    I know that we lost almost half of those who originally came to participate.  

    I know that 4-5 years ago when we were trying to have Dean Meetups in the schools the local school district charged a $1 million deposit for meetings.  I have to wonder if that's why we were shoved into such inappropriate locations?

    The only good thing about it is that I'm pretty sure we'll never have another caucus in Kansas again.

    glad you're back BTD! (none / 0) (#23)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    I too don't have a problem with people of faith (I am one), I'm just not comfortable with the extent that people wear it on their sleeve--especially after what we've been through with Bush.  The line between separation of church/state has become too blurred, resulting in an attack on science as well as the craziness we saw in Congress with the Terry Schiavo situation.    

    And, for the sake of being fair, I was also uncomfortable when HRC gave JC a shout out in her immigration answer in the last debate--referencing the Good Samaritan would have been enough in my opinion.  

    Another moment of (none / 0) (#25)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    "guess the real subject of this diary"

    Per BTD: caucuses disenfranchise voters hence caucuses are illegitimate hence Obama's lead in pledged delegates is illegitimate and the result of voter disenfranchisement.

    My take.

    This is a battle for pledged delegates according to rules all parties knew BEFORE the process began.

    The GOP effectively has a nominee. That is huge.

    The pledged delegate lead is the only metric that matters over the next weeks.

    Barack Obama has, and has always had, a lead in pledged delegates in this race.

    More pledged delegates + more volunteers + more donors + GOP nomination wrapped up = incredible pressure on super delegates.

    The nominee will be the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates per the rules established before a ballot was cast or a caucus held. It cannot NOT be.

    If I were a Clinton supporter I would spend less time debating rules that won't change and primary and caucus set ups that everyone knew about before hand and concentrate on winning pledged delegates.

    The nominee will be the winner of the battle for pledged delegate per the rules laid down ahead of time. The Super Delegates will swing to support the winner of the pledged delegates.

    Clinton has great opportunities in WA, VA, and WI.  Bill Clinton is doing 4 events in VA today.

    That's where I would focus if I were her. Senator Clinton cannot claim that she is unknown, does not have powerful allies including an ex-President on the trail for her, a large base of fundraisers, etc. She knew the rules and the rules have always favored her...Super Tuesday and early voting meant the high name recognition candidate had a true firewall against a less well known and less well funded challenger.

    That firewall did not hold. BTD, just because you chose NOT to report that, does not mean it did not happen!

    What Clinton needs is a lead in pledged delegates and to win more states. She has never had that in this nominating process.

    Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Connecticut. It starts to add up. Democrats from all over the USA understand that folks in the Clinton camp are going to pooh-pooh them and make light of their delegates in some fashion or another...

    but they also know full well what they are doing and how much power they have.

    Pledged delegates = Nomination.

    But let's not forget that superdelegates are (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    also part of these rules and always have been. That is trying to change the rules mid-process too KO.

    And don't forget when counting states that MA, NJ, CA and other large population states do matter. I don't think a decent popular vote win in a traditional Democratic state should be outweighed by a whopping majority of delegates in Alaska or Idaho.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    Because the preferences of those Democrats brave enough to be Democrats in red states are worth less? What a great message the party will send with that...

    Parent
    No, (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    because Californaia's 4,000,000 votes cannot be equal to Alaska's 400.

    That's why.  Hypocrisy knows no bounds with some, does it?

    Parent

    Uh they aren't equal (none / 0) (#66)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    Delegates are given to states roughly in proportion to the number of registered democrats. So all the pledged delegates represent roughly the same number of democrats.

    What Teresa is suggesting is that CA and MA delegates have outsized influence relative to the number of democrats they represent. Because apparently red state democrats don't count.

    Parent

    Super Delegates come after (none / 0) (#49)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    the pledged delegates.

    The voters come first. Everyone know that.

    Every Democratic insider in the USA, every super delegate knows that they are going to swing to the winner of the pledged delegates.

    Folks on blogs can say whatever we want to say about "big states" or "small states" or caucuses or "real Democratic voters"...blah, blah, blah. the fact is, we are locked into a contest by pre-ordained rules.

    What matters is pledged delegates and what the states chose to do to pick them.  Some states include non-partisan voters, some don't. Sometimes this works in Clinton's favor sometimes it does not.

    However, there is absolutely NO WAY that the super delegates will overturn even a one delegate difference in the pledged delegate count. It doesn't matter what anyone of us says about that.

    This is a battle for pledged delegates by pre-ordained rules.

    What I've been trying to get across is that Clinton needs to win pledged delegates NOW. Super delegates are coming under enormous pressure. They cannot just back Clinton AGAINST the pledged delegate count.

    They know this. Clinton needs wins and has always needed wins.

    This is not bean bags.

    This is American politics. Folks can look down their nose at all those states going for Obama but that gets all of us nowhere.

    No political party can afford to thumb its nose at the states. Period.

    Clinton needs to win delegates in the states by the rules, period.

    Parent

    Who says? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    What will super-delegates do?  Vote for the winner of the most pledged delegates nationwide, assuming that's even known due to these stupid processes in some states?  Vote for the winner of the popular vote nationwide?  Vote for the winner of the popular vote in their own state?  Vote for the winner of the most delegates in their own state?

    Not so simple after all.


    Parent

    Like you and I (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    they will vote for whomever they want.

    Parent
    If Voters Come First (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    Then I presume you support the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations?

    Look, Obama can't have it both ways.  Either the rules are the rules and so long as they are followed, the person with the most delegates (pledged and super) wins and the supers are free, under the rules, to support whomever they choose.

    Now, if you want to argue that it doesn't matter what the rules permit, the most important thing is that the voters' will is followed, then I think you can argue that Super Delegates should vote for whoever leads in Pledged Delegates, but pledged delegates should include Michigan and Florida because it's not the rules that matter, it's the votes.  

    Put another way, I don't think Obama can argue if Hillary Clinton relies on Super Delegates for the win, which is allowable under the rules, that following the rules somehow impermissibly disenfranchises voters AS he is demanding that rules be followed that disenfranchise voters.  He has to pick one or the other.  

    He can't demand fealty to the rules "for thee and not for me."   Either the rules are to be followed as they existed at the outset or they aren't.  I can see arguments either way, but I don't think he gets to have it both ways.

    Parent

    But then we are asking the superdelegates (none / 0) (#62)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    to ignore the majority of the voters (if Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and PA). I realize that caucuses are what they are, but I don't have to like it and I want them gone before this ever happens again.

    I'll be fine with either as our nominee but the fact that people registered for a day in some of these states who don't give two hoots for our traditional party platform will decide this election is not how we should be running our nomination process. I would much rather trust my local party officials and members of Congress to reflect my views than an Independent or Dem for a day.

    Either way, at least half of our party will be seriously pissed at the decision that is made.

    Parent

    re: half of our party will be seriously pissed (none / 0) (#159)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    Not if the campaigns focus on winning delegates in the states and the super delegates do their job, which is to move, in exactly a situation like this, in support of the candidate who has won more delegates by the rules established before the process began.

    Clinton's campaign has been full of back up plans: MI, FL, Super Delegates, "caucuses are unfair" "lawsuits challenging caucus sites." In effect, Clinton supporters are forced to make two mutually contradictory arguments:

    a) Hillary is the people's choice (if she is, why isn't she winning more states and delegates)

    b) If Hillary is NOT the victor in delegates then there is another path to the nomination. Using MI/FL, Super Delegates...and, as BTD does here, maligning caucuses or changing the rules mid stream...ie. pressuring state conventions to reverse caucus results.

    Obama has played (as far as any campaign can) by the rules and fought hard according to the rules established in advance of the nomination process.

    The fair contest path is the only fair pathway for both sides to have a legitimate chance at winning and a dignified path out if they don't.

    Frankly, an Obama win will not split the party in any scenario. He has to win by the rules. That's his only path to the nomination.

    A Hillary win against the will of the pledged delegates selected by the states, in any of the above manners, would be perilous for the party.

    That's another reason the Super Delegates will only swing her way if and when they have a legitimate rationale to do so.

    I repeat myself, it behooves Clinton to win delegates and states if she wants Super Delegates to support her. If she wins outright by the rules, the Democratic party will rally around her including the Super Delegates.

    The same should be true for Barack Obama.

    Parent

    Surely you do not contend the (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    Washington state Dem. caucus, followed by a primary which is meaningless is a fair system.  

    Parent
    Early voting (none / 0) (#176)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    killed the Obama campaign in California. Early voting cost us hugely.  

    In fact, the entire front loaded Tsunami Tuesday set-up favored the candidate with high name recognition and early connections in big states.

    Read my essay last night on California: Taking it to Tracy.

    I don't mention early voting, I don't whine and complain. That's because whatever "unfair" aspects of the nomination process are put in place ahead of time and there is no choice but to compete on those terms or not. You can't motivate your volunteers and persuade super delegates by whining about why things didn't work out. You have to win by the rules that were in place when you started, not debating them in mid stream. That's politics.

    Let them vote and fight for every vote per the rules.

    If Clinton's supporters need better info to empower them to get to the polls, she should spend that $7 million getting them that info. It's simple.

    Barack Obama fought in every CD in every state for the percentage of the vote favorable to him and he  added to his delegate and popular vote advantage on Super Tuesday.

    Is Washington's process fair? Is it fair that Florida had their delegates stripped before a vote was cast? Did Tsunami Tuesday serve the interests of our party?

    Those are good questions. Ask them well in advance of the next primary season and you can have an impact.

    But this is an election, a campaign. It would be nuts of Obama or his supporters to accept the premises that the agreed to rules are suddently "unfair" when they seem to go against Clinton. I say seem because things aren't always what they seem, that's why we have elections. It was Clinton, after all, who supported a lawsuit in Nevada that would have COST her the popular vote! That was unconscionable and wrong.

    Whether the rules favor him or not, Barack Obama has been winning more votes, more delegates and more states.

    He's run stronger where he was weak, and run away with contests where he was strong. He has run the 50 State Strategy.

    That's what we have to do in the general. We have to win states like Colorado and Missouri and Iowa, we have to flip GOP voters to our side. Like this primary, it may well be a close contest. I like what we've seen from Obama in that regard.

    And that's another reason that the Super Delegates will rally around Obama if he continues this winning pattern.

    Parent

    This is what Obama said yesterday... (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    Asked today if superdelegates should vote the way their states votes, Obama hedged. "We haven't' had a lengthy discussion with all of our superdelegates -- our super delegates they should vote for me," Obama said.

    So, the superdelegates should vote for the winner only if they haven't already pleged to him? Is this a new rule?

    Link to Obama

    Parent

    kid oakland (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    Delegates  from  caucuses  are  not  "pledged  delegates"  at  all.   They're not   even  firm  until  the  vote  is  taken  at  the  state  conventions     later  this  spring/summer.  

    So,  if you're  assuming  Obama's   caucus  votes   are  "pledged,"  you're  assuming  incorrectly.  

    The  votes  at  the convention  can go  the  same  way   as  superdelegates.  

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#92)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    and the votes at the conventions will follow the will of the voters.

    Just as the super delegates will.

    The super delegates understand this. They know the good of the party not just in an idealistic sense but the bottom line. They are coming under some incredible pressure right now.

    Clinton needs to win some more states and some more delegates. The entire inevitability thing only goes so far.

    You have to win delegates. You can't have it all ways, every way and both sides of every fence.

    Bill Clinton knows this, that's why he's doing four events in Virginia today, more than any of the candidates.

    The state contests either matter or they don't and we are just annointing a candidate.

    They matter. Obama and Clinton get this.

    Sentor Clinton will come under enormous pressure if she is behind in the pledged delegate count. Don't underestimate that.

    States matter in our political system. Playing by the rules matters.

    Both sides understand that.

    Parent

    kid oakland (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM EST
    NO,   the  votes  at  the   state  conventions  will follow  the will of  the  voters,  but may  change.  

    The  votes   of  the   superdelegates   may  go either  way,  as  Obama  knew  from  the   gitgo.

    Superdelegates  will look  at  big  picture,  including  which  nominee   carried  California vs  Alaska....and  all the  other   large  Dem  majority  states.  THAT  will indicate  what  the  real majority of  the  Dem Party  wants, and  superdelegates  will vote  accordingly. Superdelegates  are interested in the  candidate  most  likely  to   win   the  general  election as  a  reflection of  the  majority of  Dem voters.  

    Always  been that way.  

    Obama  doesn't  get  to pout  and  change  that  rule  just because  he  won   a  caucus  or  two  in    a  few  red  states .  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    Your concern for enfranchising voters was always phony Kid Oakland.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    I could not care less at this point who wins the nomination. I have weakly supported Obama becuase I thought he had a chance to run better and that he would evolve into something better than he has been.

    I see now that that is not likely to happen. They are two peas in a pod frankly.

    But I have ALWAYS hated the caucus system as anyone who has read since 2003 would know.

    You PRETEND to be concerned about voter disenfranchisement. We all know that is a sham from you. Anyway Obama gets the nomination is a all you EVER cared about.

    You are nothing but a bad joke now my friend.

    Perhaps after this nomination process you can regain the great stature you rightly earned prior to becoming an Obama Shill.

    Parent

    Have you read this diary (none / 0) (#44)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    Taking it to Tracy

    In it, I have nothing but respect for voters and results. I have always advocated for all sides to GOTV. That is good for the Democratic Party and essential to our democratic process.

    Folks who are losing ALWAYS jostle about the rules that were laid down ahead of time. It's inevitable.

    I'll repeat my advice because, while it may be tough medicine for Clinton supporters to hear, it's fundamentally correct:

    Clinton must focus on winning pledged delegates and states per the agreed upon rules. That is the only metric that matters. Not MI/FL. Not super delegates. Not theoretical discussions of caucuses. Not who won "big states" or "who got insulted by the media."

    John McCain is the GOP nominee. That puts incredible pressure on our party.

    I am absolutely certain that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates in the 48 states and territories outside of MI and FL.

    The super delegates will swing to that candidate. Only then will MI and FL come into play.

    Instead of discussing the theory of caucuses, Senator Clinton's supporters should roll up their sleeves and WIN THEM like they did in Nevada.

    Win the majority of pledged delegates by the agreed to rules and the nomination is yours.

    That's the deal. Obama understood that from day one.

    Parent

    Since when were superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    not part of the agreed upon rules? I don't want them deciding it either but don't act like they aren't part of the rules.

    Parent
    He's just, ahem, hoping (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
    that they'll act as he wants them to.

    Parent
    Super Delegates come after the states (none / 0) (#53)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    and they will not vote against the pledged delegate count.

    Clinton must win some of these upcoming states. It's pretty simple.

    Parent

    Wrong. They have voted (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    against the pledged delegate vote in the past.  In fact, that is why the party invented superdelegates...to 'rescue them' from a nominee whom the electeds/pols thought could not win.

    In the Dem Party, THEY are designed to be the....wait for it...

    deciders.

    Parent

    Do you have an example of this? (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:28:47 PM EST
    When was the last time that superdelegates voted against their state's wishes in a contested primary?

    Parent
    I don't have an example but they (none / 0) (#98)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    were placed there largely to prevent another McGovern type blowout.

    Parent
    Can't remember which race (none / 0) (#101)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    it was but I'll try to find it when I get back from caucus this afternoon...

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    I would be interested in that.  

    I'm not a fan of having elected officials involved in our election process.  IMO, the only thing they do is protect the status quo.

    Parent

    i know that if i were a (none / 0) (#78)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:24:11 PM EST
    superdelegate minding my own business and someone came along telling me who i had to vote for, i would vote for the other person out of spite.  

    Parent
    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#82)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    You're  right,  Theresa.   Obama  knew  the  superdelegates   deal  going  in.   He  can't   change  the  rules  now   to  game  the process.  

    BTD  is  right  about  Kid  Oakland.  

    He  couldn't  care less  about enfranchisement.  

    He  just  wants  to play  games  so Obama  wins.  

    It's  terribly  childish,   and  many Democrats  are  now realizing   Obama's  game,   and   resent  it.  This  is  not  "unity."  

    If  Obama  disenfranchises   Florida  and Michigan ,  he'll  LOSE  the  general,  and will have  helped   elect   John McCain.

    Parent

    Hate to point out the obvious (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by independent voter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    But didn't EVERYONE know the deal with FL and MI going into the primary season?
    You can't pick and choose the rules you are going to support. Some could argue that superdelegates votes counting 10,000 times more than one voter is disenfranchisement, but too bad...that's the way the rules are for this election cycle. Same with FL/ MI not being seated.


    Parent
    Absolutely correct (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    The rules are the rules whether you like them or not.

    I think it is absolutely absurd to suggest that Obama should now accept a rule change that will cause him to lose the election.  

    Parent

    independent voter (none / 0) (#116)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Sure,   they knew.  But Obama   already   TOLD  the  states  of  FLorida  and  Michigan  he would  support  their  reinstatement  before  he lost  both   of  those   primaries.  

    He  can't   renege  now  just  because  he  already lost   and  wants  to  deny   Clinton  those   delegates/superdelegates.  

    If  he  does  so,   the voters of  Florida  and  Michigan won't  support him in  the  general.  

    Parent

    I will support him in the general (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by independent voter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    should he get the nomination. I will support Hillary Clinton in the general if she gets the nomination.
    Any Florida or Michigan Democrat (or leaning) that would sit out the general election to make some kind of a point has not been paying attention the past 7 years.

    Parent
    Yeh, he was for admitting MI and FL (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    before he was against it.

    Ohhh, we can just hear how this is going to go again.

    Parent

    Cream city (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    "For  admitting   FL  & MI  before  he  was  against  it."    

    ROFLMAO---I  wish I'd though of  that!!  :)

    Parent

    Let's be serious here (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    A comment he made back in September about Florida hardly binds him.  He was trying to get the state back on the docket.  That doesn't mean that he would support reinstatement after the fact when he never campaigned in the state.

    Parent
    Serious here (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    So.....a  comment   he made  to Floridians  BEFORE  the primary  he lost  is  "no longer  operable?"

    ROFLMAO

    Parent

    When he sd. it, his fingers were crossed. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    Doesn't count.

    Parent
    Do tell just what other stands he took (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    do not really matter now.

    And, of course, he did campaign in the state, as defined by the pledge he signed -- before he held a press conference, did advertising, etc.  So his word does not matter, his signed pledge does not matter . . . you are not very persuasive for him as a president who would keep promises made now, either.

    Parent

    That's because I try to be honest (none / 0) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    So let's go back to September when he made that pledge.

    Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

    So he'll seat them IF he is the presumptive nominee.  And the "press conference" was an impromptu meeting with some press outside a fundraiser 2 days after the pledge.  He later said that he was unaware that this was a violation of the pledge and said he wouldn't do it again, which he didn't.

    If you think this means something then clearly you are just looking for things to criticize Obama about, something you and others have no problem doing.  

    Parent

    You do not try to even stick to the topic (none / 0) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    Shape up or take the day off.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    Do you have respect for 1.7 million votes cast in Florida??

    You guys were jumping up and down in Nevada, saying that you won, even though Hillary won the caucuses by a large margin.

    Then you said you won MO, where the delegates were a tie?

    Before that, you had touted Iowa as a win even though by the delegate counts, Hillary was tied for first.

    I disagree with BTD that they are two peas in a pod.  Frankly, Hillary congratulated Obama and Edwards in Iowa, all throughout this campaign, she has been supremely gracious.  Whereas Obama just packed up after Iowa and didn't even congratulate her on winning.


    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#81)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    you are wasting your time talking about changing the rules.

    Clinton needs to win states that yield delegates because the super delegates will swing to the winner of pledged delegates.

    Everyone knew this and knows this. On all sides.

    Parent

    kid oakland (none / 0) (#86)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    You're very  naive,  Oakland.  

    The  superdelegates  will not  swing  to the pledged  delegates.    They   KNOW, since you don't,  that  caucus  delegates  are not "pledged"  at  all.   They're  just  placeholders  until  the  true  vote   is  taken  at  the  state  convention.   THEN  the   delegates  are pledged;  not now.  

    Besides,  superdelegates  have  always  existed;  Obama  knew  that  going  in.  

    They  will  look  at  which candidate  has  carried  the most  large  states   with  the  Democratic  Party  base, and which  candidate  has  the  better  chance to  represent  the  party as  a  whole  in November.  

    And  that  candidate, at  this  point,   is  Hillary  Clinton.  

    WHINING  about  superdelegates  just  because   Obama  may  not  win   them   is   deceitful  at  best,  and   certainly,  manipulative.    

    They   do  what  they've  ALWAYS  done,  as  Obama  knew  they would  when  he  signed up.  

    Gimme  a  break.

    Parent

    asdf (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by spit on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:36:39 PM EST
    Clinton must focus on winning pledged delegates and states per the agreed upon rules. That is the only metric that matters. Not MI/FL. Not super delegates. Not theoretical discussions of caucuses. Not who won "big states" or "who got insulted by the media."

    I'm not Clinton, I'm not particularly a Clinton supporter, and I'm not campaigning. I can discuss the theoretical problems with whatever of this stuff I please, because regardless of who wins this primary -- and much of this stuff will be wrangled like hell by people with a lot more influence over it than you or I have -- there are some aspects to this cycle that have been downright undemocratic. They bug me. They should bug you.

    You're arguing a campaign point. It's not an incorrect campaign point. But it's not the point many people here seem to be arguing.

    Parent

    This is because (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, Kid Oaklana is a hypocritical phony.

    If the disenfranchisement MIGHT hurt Obama, there is no more important issue.

    If it helps Obama, there is nothing wrong with it.
    He has been terrible about this and it bothers me a great deal.

    Parent

    You are talking about the Lawsuit in Nevada? (none / 0) (#178)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    I'm totally consistent.

    A lawsuit designed to close pre agreed to caucus sites based on a perceived disadvantage (the endorsement of the Culinary Worker's Union) is unconscionable and against our Democratic principles.

    It disenfranchised AND broke the pre agreed to rules.

    Had it gone through it would have HURT Clinton, who actually won the Strip, and we would never have known that result. I stand by that even though the result HURT my candidate.

    We compete by the rules and laws at hand. That's the deal. You know that.

    Now, with your post you are muddying the waters on the day of a caucus, while Washingtonians still have a chance to decide whether to attend.

    You should be informing them and empowering these voters to act so that their vote counts, not feeding them cynicism.

    Parent

    Absolute nonsense. (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    Clinton must focus on winning pledged delegates and states per the agreed upon rules. That is the only metric that matters.

    This is sophistry of the most transparent manner.

    If your concern is with upholding the rules of the primary then surely you recognize that super delegates are fully part of the process with no responsibility to vote for the elected delegate winner.  Right?

    It's clear that you're attempting to set up an argument in which the supers are pressured into following the popular vote.  That may be simply because you suspect that will favor your candidate.  Or it may be out of genuine concern (which I share) that the whole idea of super delegates is anti-democratic.

    As is the idea of caucuses.

    Yet these two anti-democratic ideas are part of the Democratic Party's candidate selection system.    I don't think anyone is saying that caucus results should be thrown out (as you are probably going to argue that super delegates should have their ability to vote their preferences stripped).  Simply that caucuses suck and we should move away from them in the future.

    But if, as you claim, you're only interested in following the rules then you need to understand that a situation in which super delegates take the nomination away from the winner of either or both of the popular vote and the elected delegates is fully contemplated and allowed within the rules.

    I think that outcome would suck.  But it is allowed by the rules, and under the rules the super delegates count.

    Parent

    This is hilarious: (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:42:34 PM EST
    "then you need to understand"

    I don't think there is a deficit of understanding here.  

    Parent

    You elected a lot of your super-delegates (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    as governors (past and present, if your current one is a dem), lieutenant governors, members of Congress, and other office-holders.

    If the convention gets past first (for some) or second (for others) ballots and all delegates are no longer bound, I am a lot more comfortable with this being in the hands of people I elected than in the hands of pledged delegates, as a lot of them are big donors . . . i.e., corporate types.

    Parent

    Your respect and outrages are (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    utterly selective.

    You are a phony Kid O.

    Parent

    The idea (none / 0) (#75)
    by kid oakland on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    that you are maligning me as a phony holds water within the four corners of your mind and that's about it.

    I spent 48 hours pre-CA primary walking precincts in West Oakland and getting out the vote in a precinct important to every last Democrat who cares about what our party stands for.

    Only in the "mind of BTD" am I a phony.

    Most Democrats who know what I'm about:

    Blogs United
    the Chicago Voices scholarship program
    GOTV in CA-11 to defeat Pombo et al.
    Blogging on Dailykos and MyDD
    Advocacy for local blogs, local activism and citizen empowerment through participation
    Multi-racial, multi-regional and milti-income coalition building...

    also know from public and private experience that I am no phony.

    The only reason I post here after the crap you give out in public and in private is because I am concerned that folks on Talk Left be allowed to read a considered dissenting view.

    Clinton needs to win some pledged delegates in states that count. It's not rocket science. But it is, imo, a grave failure to accurately represent to the readers here the stakes of the matter.

    Washington is an important state. As are Nebraska, Maine and Lousiana.

    Clinton should take it seriously and perhaps can pull off a win. She needs wins this weekend and this upcoming week.

    Parent

    I've read your phony nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    about your phony concern about disenfranchising voters.

    You lost all your cred with me when you did what you did.

    If you think I am alone in my views, you are sadly mistaken.

    Go preach to your cult. You get nothing from me. your behavior has been a disgrace.

    Parent

    Phony (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    Kid  Oakland,  

    If  you  think  BTD  is  the only  one  here  who  thinks  you   are  a phony,   you   are   sadly  mistaken.  

    Anyone  with  a  bit of  logic  can  see  the  conflict of  interests  you  propose  when only   enforcing  the  "rules"   as  a  gain for YOUR  candidate.  

    Your posts  are  quite    juvenile.

    Parent

    You're talking campaigns (none / 0) (#29)
    by spit on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    and so, to a degree, is BTD.

    I'm not. I'm frankly disgusted by caucuses, have been for years, and hope beyond hoping that after this season is done we get rid of them once and for all (not that I'll hold my breath).

    Intentionally setting bars high so that average people cannot participate, forcing them to vote publically in front of their bosses and neighbors and families, and in this case making a system so incredibly confusing that normal people who don't read every scrap of fine print will not be counted, these are antithetical to what I believe in. I think if you weren't wearing your Super Campaigner Hat to the exclusion of all else these days, you'd probably find yourself pretty extra revolted by this one, too.

    How it affects this race and whether anything should be done about it, y'all are going to wrangle over. Have at it.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    I am not talking campaigns at all in this post.

    Do not write that about me.

    I hate when people try and play the neutrasl by conceding falsehodds to the other guy.

    Stop that.

    Parent

    Rereading through (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by spit on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    I misunderstood a few of your responses in the thread. You're talking about hypocrisy, not campaigning.

    Genuinely didn't mean to put you on a "side" you're not really arguing.

    Parent

    Apologies (none / 0) (#33)
    by spit on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    my misread then. I'll try not to do that.

    Parent
    push really hard (none / 0) (#70)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    for getting rid of all Caucases except Iowa.  Iowa is the hardest to get rid of, but in the other states, clean primary system is needed.  Get DNC to award bonus delegates (here's positive feedback) to states with primary.  

    Parent
    Do write comments and then look (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    for a place to plug them in?  

    Parent
    Did you read Digby's piece (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    yesterday explaining why she just shuts down comments on some posts?  I think that is an excellent idea.  You've made your point here and everyone has had some time to express their opinions about it and about lots of stuff not in your post, and to tout the position of Obama on superdelegates and why HRC had a chance to campaign in caucus states, ad infinitum.  Enough.

    BTD, will you read my reply to KO (none / 0) (#170)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    below and tell me if I am wrong about what Obama is saying? I think he is saying if you are already committed to me, you don't change your vote, but uncommitted superdelegates need to go with the winner in each state. Is this a new Obama rule or am I misreading him?

    stop the insults please (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM EST
    there's no reason for name-calling. It's against the site's policies. Disagree with each other but do it civilly please.

    Washington Showing How NOT To Run An Election | 175 comments (175 topical)